<
Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Saunders v CHC Ireland Limited [2012]
Saunders v CHC Ireland Limited [2012]
Published on: 25/06/2012
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Deirdre Crowley
Deirdre Crowley
Background

The Equality Tribunal was asked to consider whether an employer’s retirement age of 55 was discriminatory. The Equality Officer interpreted section 34 of the Employment Equality Acts in light of Article 6 of the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive. The implication of this was that the employer was required to satisfy the Equality Officer that the retirement age of 55 was justified by a legitimate interest, and that the retirement age was a proportionate and necessary means of achieving that interest.

The employee was a winchman, which is a safety-critical, physically demanding occupation. The employer stated that the objective justification for a retirement age of 55 years was: (i) the protection of the health and safety of both the winchmen and the civilians requiring rescue; and (ii) the proper operational functioning of the employer’s search and rescue service.

The Equality Officer was satisfied that the employer had established a legitimate aim. The Equality Officer then considered whether a retirement age of 55 years was a necessary way of achieving this aim. Reference was made to research on a person’s physical endurance, musculature and respiratory capacity which all support the fact that these decrease with age. It was on this basis that the Equality Officer determined that the retirement age of 55 was objectively justified.

It was made clear that a private employer, in enforcing a retirement age, must satisfy a Court that it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and that the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

The significance of this decision is that employers should now be prepared to justify mandatory retirement ages. This in line with the European Court of Justice position (Case C-411/05 Felix Palacios de la Villa –v- Cortefiel Services SA [2007] ECR-1-8531).

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 25/06/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →